you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Oh so when some idiot who does not read his opposition's posts says somethng which has laready directly been addressed and refuted, it is "lame" to link to the refutation. We must endlessly rewrite the post anew, because our opposition can't read.

I see no need to repeat myself. Anyone who wants to can confrim the post above refutes directly his reply.

[–]astronautrob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This has been refuted already. See above post.

[–]MostlySunnySkies 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you can't reference an earlier post which directly addresses your opponent's point. Why is that, exactly? Are we to act as if people are too lazy to click a link now?

[–]astronautrob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But what you're having people click just returns them to your jibberish. Why would we want to read the same thing twice? Especially something so poorly researched and sourced. It prob makes your job easier I understand. Do they pay you by the hour, word, post? Prob by the hour so I understand why you'd be wasting people time linking back to a comment that's in the same thread. You gotta make it look like you're doing something or the boss gets on ya huh? Again, let him know they shouldn't be wasting their money on said it, no one's buying it my friend. Also everything you say is already refuted by my earlier post.